What's funny about this is I wasn't even arguing with you, I sought clarification of which era of DOA you were anchoring your examples on and whether you were basing your comments on the new game.
You sought to ask me a question in an insulting manner. Whether or not you find the term arm chairing insulting, it is. Do you even know WHY it's called armchairing? Because it implies you're too lazy and stupid to get up off the couch and do it yourself, but you're perfectly willing to criticize the ones who do.
I don't care what circles you've heard that from or how regularly they use it, it's insulting.
Look at how much text you generated over misunderstanding that. You only had to say "yes, I've played the new demo and my comments, while based on a range of experiences in DOA4 in particular, still stand".
Or, "No, I haven't played the demo, I'm arguing based on DOA4. I don't see much difference in DOA5 but I haven't tested it myself"
That would have been simple. I'm not casting any aspersions or sewing any seeds of doubt. No lawyering. I was checking where you were coming from. That's a positive for clarity in a discussion.
It also would have been simple for you stop coming up with anything you possibly could to try and undermine what I was telling you. The only reason you even asked the question is because you can't stand not being able to throw a wrench in the middle of what someone else is saying. It's not pop psychology, it's what you do every day.
Your overreaction is quite apart from merits of all of this and was in response to your ego being hurt by misunderstanding my intent in using the word "armchair."
The only misunderstanding is on your part about what it means. If your buddies are all using it in that manner and thats how you learned the phrase, maybe you should tell them quit being assholes.
The discussion on 3 or 4 point holds, I'm allowed to have granular points of disagreement with you. I'm allowed to point out that your TONE and ego-centric approach to argument is going to turn people off and make them listen to you LESS.
For example, I think its an oversimplification to say EVERY situation in the game turns into a 50/50 - or if it does, it's a stretching of the term and requires qualification that it's "as good as" - but its not a true 2-choice thing in every situation and you have to appreciate people don't see it as a pure 50/50. I can understand your argument that it "is in effect", but don't think its helping anyone's understanding of what goes on in DOA matches because the 50/50 argument makes assumptions about players always doing exact "correct" responses every time.
It really isn't this clear cut in terms of the way players actual respond and think and therefore exhibit their playstyles.
You don't want oversimplification, you want the long drawn-out explanation I didn't want to give. Fine.
It's not just in the single attack, its in the odds of success in the engagement itself.
If you rolled a 3 sided dice (assuming a proper one actually existed) with the hopes of getting a single number 1 once, you had a 33.3% chance of winning.
If you roll the same dice twice, you still had a 33.3% chance on that roll BUT your accumulative chances of succeeding at
least once just doubled. This is why the situation is always "at least" a 50/50, but usually "better" for the defender.
Worse yet and what people don't always understand, the first dice roll does not happen after the first stun. It happens the moment your opponent attacks, is blocked, and put at disadvantage right in your face. Before he is even stunned he has the opportunity to counter you, and this first guess can be the most painful if he is right. If he guesses wrong and is stunned, his overall odds just doubled of catching you in a counter on the first hit INSIDE the stun. By the time you have him in the stun, mathematically you're pretty much fucked and already long past the point of likely failure.
That is why people go for the single strike option instead of the long stun mixup when they can. That's also why Genfu never went for the stun, he went for long range safe 3p+k crush that avoided everything and gave a good launch on a single counterhit. If genfu even started the stun game he had already put himself at a mathematical disadvantage.
And if you are going for single strike launches with good damage, you HAVE to play the 50/50 game from neutral, and to do THAT you require a very particular move that is capable of it like Genfu's. That's just how it is. If you aren't playing the 50/50 game, you'll be playing something more akin to 16/84 as the attacker if you're going for any kind of substantial damage. So good luck with that, going with the 50/50 makes you about THREE TIMES MORE likely to succeed with your attack
Even if you have natural combos after the first stun to remove some of the chance-of-failure scaling against you when going for that full stun launch, you'll always have to deal with that at least two opportunities of failure.
So yes, if you want to win, everything comes down to a 50/50. Unless of course, you prefer to lose, in which by all means you are welcome to "disagree" with Math and destroy your odds.
The human element is, of course, what fucks people over on defense and it's probably why you think the game is interesting. People at the top learn to drop that nonsense and play as stupid-solid as a rock though, and this is what you have never experienced. If you had, you would
hate it.
If you did understand everything I just told you, then here is another question... WHO THE FUCK WOULD EVER WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME!? People who don't understand. People who simply just don't understand. Or people who do understand but are so entirely horrible at fighting games that they get a kick out of actually having a decent chance of winning something and don't care if the rest of the competitive fanbase suffers as a result.
While on the positive side I agree with you on many points to improve the game (such as holds in critical, that is the key one).
But you thread your posts with so much personal presumption and pop psychology, generalising and judging other people. You don't know me. You don't know the other people here. It hurts your message. It obfuscates the communication.
I know how you deal with me, and that's all I need to know.
The message itself will be absorbed by people intelligent enough to read it without trying to argue with me every step of the way. If you find yourself able to do that, great.
